Good reads, here. Thanks.

The PT Barnum objection is valid. A good point I haven’t read on the UBI cons list so I appreciate that. In every scenario someone is losing. Elderly or illiterate getting scammed could be a case of Moral Panic, a term in sociology which references drumming up fear on low percentage instances of misfortune. This is basically how terrorism is used today. I don’t know the numbers on scamming, though.

Secondly, a “if it goes wrong plan” would definitely be necessary. I’m glad it was brought up, but being realistic, that’s not an effective way to communicate or sell an idea to the masses. I would agree with the author here that most people proposing UBI plans probably don’t have an escape hatch planned, but, even if they did, in my opinion, it would communicate a lack of confidence. Essential maybe in the formal Congressional proposals but in a book for your average Joe, probably not.

On existentialism, this is probably what I think is the least thought out point. In this article, it’s written as if the cause for mass unemployment is UBI. Simply not the case and completely unrelated. We could institute a UBI today and see employment be relatively unaffected. The problem of existentialism and unemployment is an automation problem.

I agree that UBI does not solve existentialism at all. Man’s desire for work is a learned skill. It’s said for the first 190,000 years Homo Sapiens existed on the planet, we lounged for 12 hours a day socializing. We don’t need work. However, in this society, the need for work is real because its been learned through the meritocratic American values. Learned or not, I agree, existentialism, with or without UBI, is a great threat to the system.

But it’s hard to worry about what people will do with their time if they are starving and resorting to gangs for literal survival. This is what happens when jobs leave with no new sources of income. See Campbell New Jersey or Youngstown, Ohio.

For ease of research: Campbell had a violent crime rate equal to Somalia.